Do or die--Strategic decision-making following a shock event.
Little attention has been directed towards investigating how senior managers and boards approach strategic decision-making when dealing with shock events as compared to strategic decision-making in a stable environment. This paper presents evidence to suggest that strategic decision-making following a shock event involves a more intuitive, less analytical and less consultative approach, while decision-making in a stable environment is characterised by a more cooperative, formal and analytical process. Decision-making following a shock event tends to be simplified and fast, whereas decision-making in a stable environment tends to be comprehensive and slow. Furthermore, the strategic role of the board transforms following a shock event from a limited involvement in strategy setting to a strong involvement in the setting of strategy. This research has important management implications signifying that crisis management must increasingly focus on building an , ability to reach swift decisions in crisis situations and avoid analysis paralysis. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
Prior to analysis, responses to each question were entered into appropriate cells of a spreadsheet. The data analysis employed qualitative procedures aimed at uncovering themes relating to shock events and the contextual details of their decision making prior to and following a shock event. Statements were coded firstly using an open (or initial meaning code) and secondly an axial (or categorisation of open codes) coding scheme as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1984) and also Strauss and Corbin (1998)
Case Study, interviews
Nine semi-structured interviews were held with the chief executive officer, the chairman of the board of directors and all key senior managers of one regional Australian airport.
Multiple informants were interviewed to generate different perspectives on strategic decision-making to ensure the findings were objective.Interviews were designed to yield two complementary types of information: (1) a description of the managers own understanding of shock events impacting the airport and (2) contextual details concerning strategic decision making before and after the shock event.
It will also contribute towards a better understanding of strategy development, as it is the patterning of strategic issue responses over time that underlies the strategy formulation process.
This paper presents evidence to suggest that strategic decision-making following a shock event involves a more intuitive, less analytical and less consultative approach, while decision making in a stable environment is characterized by a more cooperative, formal and analytical process.Decision-making following a shock event tends to be simplified and fast, whereas decision-making in a stable environment tends to be comprehensive and slow. Finally, this paper will assist managers to develop strategies and policies to better manage and cope with the impact of shock events in the future.
This paper compares decision-making in a stable environment with decision-making following a shock event.
 |
Portfolio of Solutions web site has been initially developed in the scope of DRIVER+ project. Today, the service is managed by AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH., for the benefit of the European Crisis Management. PoS is endorsed and supported by the Disaster Competence Network Austria (DCNA) as well as by the STAMINA and TeamAware H2020 projects. |